Re: Deployment of CCI
Joel Crisp (Joel.Crisp@bristol.ac.uk)
Tue, 6 Dec 1994 13:32:28 +0000
> From email@example.com Tue Dec 6 13:25 GMT 1994
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 14:25:52 +0100
> From: Steinar Bang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Joel.Crisp@bristol.ac.uk
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Deployment of CCI
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> > There are obviously also disadvantages to this model, but I think
> > that the current trend for UNIX browsers to use this type of idea
> > anyway ( with the X-windows window manager being the integrator )
> > shows that people like it.
> Not necessarily. It only shows that this is easy to do under UNIX/X11.
> To me it seems like a hack solution. An integrated user interface
> (like Netscape) is far more appealing.
The integrated user interface is why this model works.
At the moment, every view is started up externally ( except for the inline
special cases ). With the suggested model of a 'page manager' rather than
a browser like Mosaic, all viewers share the user interface of the page
manager. This is similar to the way that all windows under X share the
UI of the windows manager.
I believe that this gives a *much* greater degree of integration in the
user interface than the current situation of totally un-integrated external
( Note : I am not suggesting that X-windows be used as the page manager,
just something like it but with a higher level of integration ).